The document discusses various concepts related to social influence and obedience. It defines key terms like conformity, compliance, internalization, and obedience. It also outlines and evaluates several classic studies on these topics, including Asch's line judgment study, Milgram's obedience study, and Moscovici's minority influence study. Various reasons for conformity and obedience are explored, such as normative and informational social influence, gradual commitment, and locus of control.

1. Psychology
PSYA2 – Social By Nicky Burt

3. 1. Define conformity:
Conformity:
A result of social influence where
people adopt the
behaviours, attitudes and
values of the majority members
of a group.

4. 2. Define, describe and recognise
examples of internalisation:
Internalisation:
A true change of someone’s
private views to match other’s
attitudes and behaviours.

5. 3. Define, describe and recognise
examples of compliance:
Compliance:
Publicly conforming to the
behaviour or views of others in
a group, whilst privately
maintaining one’s own views.

6. 4. Explain the difference between
compliance and internalisation:
If someone complies to other’s behaviour, then
they are publically conforming to the groups
views, whilst privately maintaining their own
views. However, if someone internalises, then
they make a true change of their private views
to match the attitudes and behaviour’s of
others.

7. 5. Describe two reasons for conformity (Informational Social
Influence and Normative Social Influence) and the difference
between them
Normative Social Influence: Is based on our desire
to be liked. We conform so other’s will accept us.
So, publically, we go along with other peoples
views, so we feel we have something in common.
However privately, we retain our own views. (e.g.
Calling a friend to see what to wear)
Informational Social Influence: Is based on our
desire to be right. We look to other’s who we
think will be correct. (Can lead to internalisation.)

8. 6. Outline and evaluate Asch’s study into reasons
for conformity (1951) – MAJORITY INFLUENCE
Outline:
• 50 male college students tested.
• All but one were
confederates/accomplices per test.
Genuine participant called out his
answer last.
• 74% conformed at least once.
• 26% never conformed, they
experienced doubt, but resisted
pressure to conform.
• Asch concluded that people
Watch
conformed due to Normative Social
Influence (the desire to be liked). here!
• Other’s experienced internalisation
where they genuinely felt the others

9. Asch (1951)’s evaluation:
• All male participants = androcentric. Therefore may not be
generalisable.
• 1950’s, USA, everyone was very conservative. People tried to fit in.
This was called McCarthyism.
• Small sample size - only 50 students tested. May not be
representative.
• Was all in the USA, therefore ethnocentric. Not generalisable.
• Lab study - loweredecologically valid.
• Desire to conform.
• All participants were debriefed.
• Lab study – easily replicable, and therefore may be reliable if
repeated to produce similar results.

10. 7. Outline and evaluate Moscovici’s (1969) study into
reasons for conformity – MINORITY INFLUENCE.
OUTLINE: EVALUATE:
• 6 Participants. 2 were accomplices. • Lowered ecological validity –
• Had 36 slides, all were varying
shades of BLUE. done as a lab study.
• 2 conditions • All female participants –
- inconsistent gynocentric. Can’t generalise.
- consistent.
• Inconsistent – Two accomplices • Culturally bias – endocentric.
called the slides GREEN every time. All in USA.
Participants called the slides green in
8.4% of the trials. • Lab study, demand
32% of the participants called a slide characteristics.
green at least once.
• Lab study, therefore increased
• Consistent – Two accomplices reliability if tested again to
called the slides GREEN 24 produce similar results.
times, andBLUE 12times.
Participants called the slides GREEN in • Extraneous variables are more
1.3% of the trials. controlled in a lab study.

11. 8: Define the term ‘obedience’
An outcome of social influence where an
individual acts according to others, usually
from an authority figure. It is assumed that
without such an order, the person would not
have acted in this way.

12. 9. Explain the difference between
obedience and conformity
Obedience is obeying an order, often given by an
authoritarian figure, whereas with conformity,
no one tells you to do anything, you adopt
behaviours, attitudes and belief’s of those
around you.

13. 10. Outline and evaluate Milgram’s
(1963) study into obedience
Outline:
• 40 paid male volunteers.
• Given a ‘teacher’ role. Were separated from the
learner. Learner was quizzed. Every time an answer was
wrong, the ‘teacher’ had to ‘shock’ the learner.
• No shocks were actually administered.
• ‘Prods’ were given prompting the teacher to continue.
• Experiment continued until teacher refused or 450V
were given four times.
• Participants were debriefed.
• All participants went to at least 300V

14. Milgram (1963) evaluation:
• No protection from psychological harm – could
be long term!
• Little resemblance to a real life
situation, therefore lacked ecological validity.
• The teacher may have shown signs of demand
characteristics, acting in a certain way to please
the experimenter.
• All male, therefore androcentric.
• Lack of informed consent.
• 84% said they were glad they were involved, and
learnt something about themselves.
• Everyone was debriefed.

15. 11. Milgram 1963 Variations:
Variation What happened Obedience going to 450V
Original experiment 65%
Venue moved to ‘seedy’ Obedience fell 47.5%
offices
Teacher had to force learner’s Obedience fell further, when 30%
hand on plate to receive shock teachers physical force was
applied
Experimenter left the room, Obedience fell when teacher 20.5%
and instructed teacher via felt they were being less
phone closely observed
Teacher given support by two Obedience fell when 10%
confederates participants conformed to
modelled disobedience

16. 12. Explain at least two reasons people
obey supported by studies (ieHofling and
Rank and Jacobson, 1977):
Hoflinget al (1966) – Obedient nurses:
In this experiment. Nurses received a phone call from a doctor, telling
them to administer 20mg of a drug (which would be double the
max. dosage) to a patient.
21/22 participants began to give the medication – which was actually a
placebo - before another nurse stopped them.
10/22 nurses noticed that it was over the maximum dose, but didn’t
want to disobey doctors.
Field experiment – ecologically valid
Clear procedure – therefore repeatable.
If repeated to produce similar results, it would also be reliable.
Rank and Jacobson (1977) repeated, and got dissimilar results.
Question reliability.
No informed consent, no right to withdraw.
Nurses could have been psychologically harmed due to it being
something that could have harmed patients.

17. Rank and Jacobson (1977)
They then repeated the experiment with a
more common drug (valium) and at 3 times
the max dosage, but let the nurses ask other
nurses what they would do. In this test, only
2/18 nurses prepared the medicine. They
concluded that the nurses only prepared in
Hofling’s experiment because they weren’t
allowed to seek advice, and they didn’t know
about the drug.

18. 13. Be able to give at least four explanations of why people obey
(e.g. Gradual commitment, Agentic shift, Buffers, legitimate
authority, authoritarian personality)
Gradual commitment:
People have difficulty refusing
commands. They comply with a
trivial request, but as the
request gets more
significant, the participants
finds it harder to deny. They
have a desire to seem
consistent.
This theory links to Milgram
(1963) as participants gradually
increased the ‘electric shocks’

19. Agentic Shift:
A participant sees themselves as
‘agents’ of others, therefore no
longer feeling responsible for
their actions.
This theory links to Milgram (1963)
as the learners didn’t feel as
guilty, as they were just obeying
the experimenters orders.
It also links to Hoflinget al (1966)
as the nurses acted as agents for
the doctors.

20. Contractual obligation:
When the participant makes
a commitment, and they
feel obliged to continue
the experiment.
Links to Milgram (1963) as
prompts made them feel
as though they had to
continue.

21. Buffers:
Protect people from
having to confront the
consequences of their
actions.
Links to Milgram
(1963) research into
obedience as the
participants couldn’t
see the learners, as
they were in different
rooms.

23. 14. Outline and evaluate locus of control as an
individual difference affecting individual behaviour
(Rotter)
Locus of Control – Rotter 1966
• Attributional Style
• Agentic shift (shift from agentic to autonomous state)
• EXTERNAL LOC is when you believe your behaviour is
predetermined by an external being, such as God, or fate.
• INTERNAL LOC is when you believe your behaviour is
determined by your own thoughts and feelings.
• People are more likely to obey if they have an externalLOC.
• The locus of control is on a continuum, therefore it is a fluid
model, and has no fixed points.
• THE LOC IS ‘HOW MUCH A PERSON BELIEVES THAT THEY
HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR.’

24. Evaluation of LOC
High internal – Neurotic/anxious/depressed
High external – Chilled/easy-going
+ Reliable methodology
+ Give quantitative results
- Simplistic explanation of a complex subject =
reductionist
- Gender stereotype:
They say MEN are more INTERNAL.
And WOMEN are more EXTERNAL.
- This is socially sensitive, stating that women can’t work
independently.

25. Attributional style:
• Some people blame themselves, therefore not
fitting a category and not a positive
attributional style.
• Situation may be most important.
• More complex than LOC, accounts for
personality type.
• Heaven et al (2005) looked at consciences and
rebellious students, and found negative
attributional styles with rebellious students.

26. 15. Explain at least two ways people can resist pressures to
conform (role of allies, Asch; Presence of a dissenter, Asch; Prior
commitment; personality including internal locus of control)
Resisting pressure to conform:
• Desire for individuation –
Snyder and Fromkin (1980) led a group of American
students to believe that their most important
attitudes were different from 10,000 other students.
They then told the second group that their most
important attitudes were the same as the 10,000
other students. After being stripped of their usual
identities, they took part in a conformity study and
THEY RESISTED PRESSURES TO CONFORM. Snyder
argued he was trying to make them assert their
individuality.

27. • Desire to maintain control:
We like to think that we can control events in our lives, this
opposes the idea of yielding to social influence.
However, BURGER (1992) demonstrated that people with a high
need for personal control are more likely to resist conformity
pressures than those with a lower need.
DAUBMAN (1993) researched this further, by using jigsaw puzzles.
the participants took a Desirability test, and results were
accumulated on a Desirability of a Control Scale. Those who
scored lowly on the Desirability test welcomed hints on the
puzzles, however, those who scored highly felt worse after it was
offered.
This supports Burger’s contention that other people’s offers of
advice or attempts at influence are seen as threats.

28. Prior commitment:
Once publicly committed to an idea, people are
less likely to change their position than if their
initial opinion was kept private.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) did a study, where a
naïve participant gave an idea, which was then
followed by confederates giving different
answers. When asked to reconsider, the
participant declined due to his desire to seem
consistent.

29. 16. Explain at least two ways people can resist pressures to obey
(eg the situation - Milgram in office block, attributional style,
locus of control, agentic shift, allies)
People can resist pressures to obey due to the situation. For example,
in Milgram’s (1963) study into obedience, when the study was
repeated in a shady office block – an area much less prestigious
than the initial lab, the obedience rates decreased from 65% to
47.5%.
Another way that people can resist pressures to obey could be their
locus of control. If someone has an internal locus of control, they
very much believe that what they do is up to them, and they are less
likely to obey
A third reason that people can resist obeying could be the agentic shift.
If a person believes that they will not be held responsible for doing
something deemed ‘bad’ in a situation, they are more likely to do it.
This links to HOFLING et al (1966) with his ‘obedient nurses’ study.
The nurses obeyed as they are ‘agents’ for the doctor.

30. 17. Evaluate resistance to obedience and conformity.
Consider the research evidence and alternative
explanations
• People obey due to gradual commitment,
agentic shift, contractual obligation, buffers,
and legitimate authority. (All can link to
Milgram 1963.)
• People conform due to Normative Social
Influence (the desire to be liked) and
Informational Social Influence (the desire to
be right.) (Can link to Asch 1951.)

32. 18. Discuss how findings from social influence research might have
implications for change in society (eg snowball effect; consistency;
foot in the door; development of ethical guidelines). .
• Snowball effect (Van Avermaet 1996)
- What happens with minority influence.
- A few members of the majority move towards the
minority influence.
- Then the influence of the minority gathers
momentum as more people join the minority
view.
• Gradual commitment
- Once people comply with a seemingly trival
task, they find it more difficult to refuse to carry
out more serious tasks.

33. 19. Consider the role of minority influence in Social Change
(consistency, flexible, not dogmatic, gradual commitment, role of a
dissenter and snowball effect). Moscovici can be used to support this.
• Snowball effect (Van Avermaet 1996)
- What happens with minority influence.
- A few members of the majority move towards the minority
influence.
- Then the influence of the minority gathers momentum as
more people join the minority view.
• Gradual commitment
- Once people comply with a seemingly trival task, they find
it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious tasks.
• Supported by Moscovici
- The BLUE slides. 2/6 were accomplices of the experimenter.

34. 20. Outline and evaluate two of these implications for
society (using study support and opposing
explanations)
• Snowball effect (Van Avermaet 1996)
- What happens with minority influence.
- A few members of the majority move towards the
minority influence.
- Then the influence of the minority gathers
momentum as more people join the minority
view.
• Gradual commitment
- Once people comply with a seemingly trivial task,
they find it more difficult to refuse to carry out
more serious tasks.